Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Escalation Forces Bush to Resort to Recruiting Convicts

By Robin Morgan, Women's Media Center. Posted January 22, 2007.


Escalating the war in Iraq means the military will grant more "moral waivers" -- permitting recruits with criminal records and emotional problems who would otherwise be unfit to serve.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Brace yourself. Bush's Iraq escalation, euphemized as "surge," sends just over 20,000 more troops into that bottomless pit, and flirts with an invasion of Iran. But because Iraq has depleted our armed forces -- and recruitment levels plummet as our population wises up -- Bush's plan requires still more: the entire Army active-duty force must swell to 547,000 over the next five years (an increase of 39,000), and the Marine Corps grow by 23,000 (to 202,000).

Constitutionally, Congress must approve or disapprove the expansion -- but one never knows whether this particular executive branch recognizes that the legislative (or judicial) branches exist.

Meanwhile, Bush simply changes the rules to suit his mad plans, raising the enlistment age to 42, and removing the cumulative limit -- 24 months active duty in any five-year period -- for National Guard Reserve units.

Furthermore, the military will now mobilize units, not individuals, so soldiers who've completed their duty tours, but, perhaps, transferred to a new unit, will still be eligible. Never mind how destructive this is to "family values" or a "sound economy."

Then there's the still-astonishing "moral waiver" -- employed to produce more cannon fodder. In 2005, already desperate for fresh recruits, the Army started increasing, by nearly half, the rate at which it grants what it terms "moral waivers," permitting recruits with criminal records, emotional problems, and weak educational backgrounds to serve.

Afterward, if these recruits survive, they'll be called heroes and released back into society. One returned hero, who credited the military with having "properly trained and hardened me," was Timothy McVeigh. According to the Pentagon, waivers in 2001 totaled 7,640, increasing to 11,018 in 2005.

But those are numbers. How does this play out in lives?

We now know. In March 2006, five U.S. soldiers allegedly stalked, gang-raped, and murdered 14-year old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, slaughtered her family, and burned the bodies. The U.S. military managed to hush the story up until July, then detained the five, immediately scapegoating Pfc. Steven D. Green as the "bad apple" ringleader -- who'd conveniently already been discharged.

Then we learned that Green, a 19-year-old Texas high-school dropout, had enlisted despite three convictions: fighting, plus alcohol and drug possession. Once, the Army would have rejected him.

Now, he was accepted, under a "moral waiver." He got "born again" religiously while being trained to kill legally; got sent to Iraq with the 101st Airborne Division's 502nd Infantry Regiment; got shot at; and got discharged for a "personality disorder" after allegedly leading the Abeer massacre.

Yet according to a January 9, 2007 Associated Press story by Ryan Lenz, three months before that massacre, an Army Combat Stress Team in Iraq had diagnosed Green as a "homicidal threat." (We assume they did not mean he was simply a well-trained soldier.) Green sought psychiatric help in December, 2005, pleading he was so angry about the war and so desperate to avenge his platoon friends' deaths that he felt driven to kill Iraqi citizens.

They told him to get some sleep.

According to medical records obtained by the AP, they also prescribed "several small doses of Seroquel -- to regulate his mood." Seroquel's website claims the drug is for "acute mania associated with bipolar disorder." The next day, Army shrinks sent him back to active duty in the "Triangle of Death" south of Baghdad.

Three months passed. No psychological follow-up. Then -- eight days after the Abeer atrocities -- Green was suddenly summoned for another exam, diagnosed with an "anti-social personality disorder," and swiftly declared "unfit for service."

An immediate discharge process began. He was shipped home in May, arrested in June, and moved to the U.S. marshal's custody in Louisville, Ky. (for proximity to Ft. Campbell). There, in November, he was arraigned on numerous counts, including premeditated and felony murder, which carry a minimum life sentence and possible death penalty.

Green's alleged "followers" face courts martial on various charges, and they may be allowed to plead to lesser counts and punishments; so far one has been convicted and sentenced. But Green's trial is federal, in U.S. District Court, since his well-timed discharge means he isn't the military's problem. In effect, Green seems to have been legally triaged.

As the WMC's on-site reporter noted, Green, who pled "not guilty," is represented only by the Louisville public defenders' office. Yet, oddly, the prosecution team includes Brian D. Skaret of the U.S. Department of Justice Domestic Security Section, in Washington, DC.--a section primarily charged with prosecuting smuggling, border violations, and foreign nationals accused of supporting terrorists.

Is Washington that eager to ensure that culpability for these crimes won't be traced back to the Pentagon or White House?

Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, psychiatry counsel to the Army Surgeon General, defends treatment policies for emotionally or psychologically distressed soldiers, but won't discuss Green -- nor will the 101st Airborne Division.

According to documents viewed by the AP, when Lt. Col. Elizabeth Bowler -- an Army reservist psychiatrist who took over the Combat Stress Team in January -- recommended Green's discharge, her final evaluation stated: "Green exhibited no traits that would indicate dangerously erratic or homicidal moods."

This was after the rape-murders-burnings, and despite Green's cries for help.

The military -- especially the Army and Marines, with the most personnel in Iraq -- has been criticized for sending troops diagnosed mentally and emotionally unfit back to combat duty, often under medication prescribed for too short a time to have taken effect.

As for moral waivers, instead of dropping them entirely -- as morality would dictate -- the Pentagon issued new guidelines in November. Some prevent personnel with certain "pre-existing mental problems" from deploying to Iraq or Afghanistan (but not elsewhere), and: "Mental illnesses that are not expected to be resolved in one year will be cause for discharge."

One year? Green was on active duty for less than one year.

Weep not only for Iraqi civilians. Weep for ourselves.

Social scientists have repeatedly charted how post-war domestic-violence rates soar, as returning vets (including those who started out sane) try to cope with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder plus reflexes trained to react with lethal force. Spousal battery, marital rape, child sexual abuse, child battery, homicides, and suicides rise precipitously in the wake of wars -- especially those with intense ground combat and high casualties.

Less than a month ago, between Christmas and New Year's 2006, five U.S. soldiers committed suicide upon being informed they'd been ordered to serve an additional tour in Iraq.

Bush keeps warning, "If we don't fight 'em in Iraq, we'll have to fight 'em here at home." Presumably, he means the pre-U.S.-invasion, nonexistent terrorists in Iraq, not our own armed forces.

But given his escalation, his hunger to sacrifice more lives, his extended active-duty tours, and his continuing "moral waivers," what behavior might we really expect when those 547,000 GIs and 202,000 Marines eventually return home?

And long before then, who will listen to their cries for help, or monitor what acts they commit -- before they are triaged, discharged, and hung out to dry?

This report continues the Women's Media Center series and organizing campaign focusing on the crimes against Abeer Qassim al-Janabi and their implications for the U.S. military and foreign policy. For more of the Iraq Series, go to WMC Campaigns .

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: war in iraq, violence against women, abeer qassim al-janabi, moral waivers, military recruitment

Robin Morgan's latest book is Fighting Words: A Toolkit for Combating the Religious Right (Nation Books). She is a co-founder and board member of The Women's Media Center.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Get your war on
Posted by: YogiBear on Jan 22, 2007 2:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unless the surge lasts for more than two years, the new recruits shouldn't be affected by the call for a surge, since it takes too long to train and deploy them. The surge will be made up almost entirrely by stop-loss -- keeping people in-country longer, and accelerating the return of units who have been there and come back. Guard units are supposed to have 5 years between deployments, but the word is that's going to be reduced anyways.

The way I figure it, those less than desirable new recruits are being sought after to help fill the ranks for the next big war. We'll be sicking them on the Iranians, or who knows who else with our warmonger-in-chief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Very appropriate Posted by: Edward George
» RE: Very appropriate Posted by: blitzmesser
» RE: Get your war on Posted by: sphoenix
» RE: Get your war on Posted by: Krain61
» RE: Get your war on Posted by: Ian MacLeod
what about...
Posted by: jessicalh on Jan 22, 2007 2:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...the arguement that if one can die in Iraq with a felony conviction, one should also have the franchise?

All apocrypha, but there are many stories about how military service gave people without a whole lot going for them a second chance and the break they needed. Not that getting blown up is a break but...the underlying moral arguement here seems to be that we are allowing in "bad" people and training them to be dangerous "bad" people. With the highest incarceration rate in the world, I'm inclined to think we should be considering "moral waivers" in larger society, for the civil death we've imposed on a generation of young men and women...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: what about... Posted by: cami0
The draft is the best way to keep standards up
Posted by: Bobsays on Jan 22, 2007 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recruiting psychos and degenerates is a cop out. Imagine if there was a draft and you brought into the military the best educated US population ever. The most technologically sophisticated generation ever, to fight this war.

If this is going to drag on, and it seems the Dems agree it must, then draft because it is the best way to get talent and to make sure the price is paid by all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» YA, Start the Draft, IT WILL END THE WAR Posted by: common intelligence
standards what standards?
Posted by: pacto on Jan 22, 2007 6:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well we lowered the "standards" when we allowed the supreme court to select an ex-alcoholic/coke addict to be the leader of our country,and before that "tricky- dick Nixon, a full blown alcoholic with his V.P. Spiro,tax evader. recruting criminals ......Whats New????
..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: standards what standards? Posted by: mountainmama
» i was going to write exactly that! Posted by: nor cal surfer
Draft from Prison.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 22, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Prison is a controlled and confined society, so is the military. Prisoners would make great killers for the US Military. And we could empty the prisons. The deal is this:

a prisoner gets to do his/her time in prison or the military. If one has a life sentence then one does thirty years in the military. If one has two years of a sentence, then two years in the military.

At least, we could reduce the aweful prison over crowding, and turn the dispositions of the prisoners to good use.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Draft from Prison. Posted by: VZEQICVA
» What ego-driven snivel Posted by: psychochurch
» RE: What ego-driven snivel Posted by: Lauren
» Slavery Posted by: mizipi
» RE: Draft from Prison. Posted by: Krain61
WHITE HOUSE STANDARDS TELL THE STORY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Jan 22, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The voluntary military was initially aimed at lower and middle income people, a source that wouldn't dry up. Flawed calculation. No one considered demographic changes over the decades. Not to mention a war that never had the support of the general public. We were also told that it would be over in less than 3 months (Rummy). They DO NOT listen to their Generals and Military experts. Lowering standards increases risk at all levels. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now I have heard it all....
Posted by: Captainmagic on Jan 22, 2007 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The amerikan foriegn legion. De Gaul would be turning in his grave.....bit of a difference really, between the two..The French foriegn Legion has given up doing clusterf@#ks.

Don't you already have Blackwater et al..

Captain OUT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now I have heard it all.... Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Are we so hard up
Posted by: Chickensh*tEagle on Jan 22, 2007 6:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for presidents and vice presidents and all others in government that we have to grant them so many moral waivers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Dirty Dozen
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jan 22, 2007 7:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a scene in the movie "The Dirty Dozen", where the army psychiatrist is talking to Lee Marvin's character about his assesment of his recruits:

Psychiatrist: "You got one religious fanatic, one malignant dwarf, two near idiots, and the rest I don't even care to think about"

Marvin: "Can you think of a better way to fight a war?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Dirty Dozen Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: The Dirty Dozen Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: The Dirty Dozen Posted by: gary_7vn
» The Dirty Blowback Posted by: eddie torres
» The Bridge on the River Kwai Posted by: zooeyhall
» RE: The Bridge on the River Kwai Posted by: Lincoln fan
» Lee Marvin Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Wake up people Posted by: Krain61
Concetta
Posted by: norwaybirds3 on Jan 22, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would like to know how the restrictions for enlistment has changed as far as physical conditions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Concetta Posted by: mizipi
Nothing New.--ever heard of the French Foreign Legion?
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 22, 2007 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once again an Alternet author has no concept of history or the facts. Outright criminals have been used in war forever. And 'moral' waivers are even more common. In fact, it could be argued that one of the primary purposes of an army, and foreign conflict, is to export criminality and violent personalities (in other words use their violence for some 'good'). Ever heard of British Navy press-gangs? Ever heard of the French Foreign Legion- where they even give you a NEW NAME after your service so that you can start civilian life cleanly? Judges, particularly for juveniles/highschoolage, for years have differed adjudication if the person joined the military (to straighten them out, give them career, keep them out of prison.) Likewise countries (like USA) have offered citizenship for military service for non-citizens. All of this is nothing new, of course, but just the limited historical knowledge of Alternet authors yet again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What difference does it make anyway?
Posted by: symcokid on Jan 22, 2007 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We've got criminals in the White House running and ruining this country so what difference would it make if recruits with street smarts are called upon to fight in this illegal war. This may be a perfect way to empty our prisons too, and if they don't get killed, they're free to go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Inflated Article
Posted by: Ian Hess on Jan 22, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Half my cousins from our "country side" of the family could potentially be baby rapists since they've been arrested for fighting, alcohol and drug possession. Now that I think about it, I could easily be that guy if they had caught me between the years of 17 and 23, right before I enlisted in the Navy. Thank goodness I got away with being young and boisterous!

As a combat vet, this article makes me out to be a potential baby rapist. I didn't know that fighting alcohol (OMG!) and drug possession could mean mean I have a predisposition to stalk small children and lead soldiers to gang rape them and kill their families.

The story about one nut case does not follow as evidence supporting all of the claims in the begining of the article. It would have done well as an informative article about the one nut case, without all of the presuppositions at start.

I'm an ardent liberal, but this author's logic wouldn't pass the grade in most reputable academic settings. Such illogical progressions are a detriment to our case as Liberals since they erode our moral channels into the minds of those still across the aisle, or undecided.

I suggest that this author has simply found a convenient target to lambast rather than all those "baby killer" troops over there. One that fewer people will retort to with the "I support our troops" retort.

The author states: "Afterward, if these recruits survive, they'll be called heroes and released back into society."

So? What is wrong with that? As liberals we know that something like half of all our criminals are pot smokers. As liberals we also used to argue that a sentence is reformatory. We would like to think that if someone did their time they've paid for their crime and deserve a second chance in society. Isn't fighting for your country part of society's allowable roles?

As liberals we also fought hard for mental illnesses to be seen NOT as moral deficits, but instead, likened to physical illness.

We have doctors, lawyers and politicians on mood adjusting meds. It's ok to be someone in need of chemical adjustments in today's world. If one goes back to the 70's they will find articles written by us Liberals pointing out how crazy it is that someone is too mentally ill to murder for their country.

Examine two scenarios outside of the context of this particular war. The ideal of serving one's country in peacetime, or against Nazi Germany, would make a mere mood swing that can be adjusted by gentle medication not a big deal. But, once you start dividing lines and arguing as hard as you can, some arguments are just more accepable and wanted than others, and this article sports one of those.

It's a very nice article if you remove all of the overstated conclusions and read just about the nut case that the Pentagon is afraid will give us liberals ammo to draw absurd conclusions from, like we just did in this article.

The author states, "One returned hero, who credited the military with having "properly trained and hardened me," was Timothy McVeigh."

Using that logic, Jeffrey Dahmer would make all gay men in Milwaukee out to be potential mass murderers.

As a gay male living in that town, I can assure you it's not the case.

After reading this article I felt that I would deny the author advancment if they were advancing up the control consoles on my ship, where I often denied men advancement because I felt they could not exercise sound judgment under stress.

Who is the author's disdain really directed at? YOU, because they assume you can't think anymore clear headedly than themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well Said...Stand Tall my man... Posted by: psychochurch
Military can give prisoners a new chance
Posted by: wobblies on Jan 22, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hi~
While I don't recommend the military for anyone as a means of finding him or herself, it can be a place where young people who get off to a rough start can get a new chance at living. Please don't paint all prisoners or ex-cons with the same negative brush.

With this comment, I'm not trying to dismiss your larger point about the depths to which George is stooping to find new recruits to continue his wars. I am saying that many of those people in prison have higher moral values than the commander-in-chief.

God Speed,
David

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hypocritical irony
Posted by: charemor on Jan 22, 2007 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How interesting that the military will lower the bar to now admit criminals, crooks, drug addicts and give them moral waivers but still will not allow homosexuals to join the army. And how disgusting that we now have a shortage of qualified Arabic interpreters while many who were qualified were dismissed for being homosexual.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hypocritical irony Posted by: CatDad
» RE: Hypocritical irony Posted by: laoma
» RE: Hypocritical irony Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Hypocritical irony Posted by: Aussie Kim
how about the soldier next to you?
Posted by: bluepilgrim on Jan 22, 2007 11:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author mentions increased risks for the Iraqis and the people here at home, but leaves an important consideration out. The military depends on strong social bonds between soldiers and everyone lookng out for the soldier next to him, and everyone being competent. Not all, of course, but many convicts have problems with social relationships and have little loyalty for or bonding with others. If you were in combat would you rather have a normal soldier covering your back, or someone who was in prison and a screw-up? Is this fair to the other troops?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leftward
Posted by: Leftward on Jan 22, 2007 12:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's interesting how those who serve prison terms have been offered the "moral" option of "serving" the military but at the same time those who were former prisoners are not allowed to vote as shown with the chaos and conniving of the 2000 U.S. presidential election and probably in 2004 as well.

While those serving time are obviously not all psychotic, it would seem that implementing this "moral waiver" would increase the chance of someone psychotic to join the military, and thus being shipped over to another country and increasing the chance of committing atrocities. The local population would bear the brunt, as some incidents show in Iraq. And frankly, that is bullshit.

It can be asked in perhaps many cases why these "moral waiver" recruits landed up in prison in the first place. Of course there are individuals outside of prison that exhibit psychotic behavior, and have no doubt joined the military, but that does not excuse either the former or the latter. For the latter, it may be a matter of time before some of them end up in prison.

Then we have the biggest criminals of all "running" the U.S. The Bush regime is indeed some kind of psychotic abomination. It would take more than impeachment to right the wrongs these madmen have committed. But whether it's standards for the military or the presidency, we and the rest of the world deserve better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Leftward Posted by: Lauren
Merc Country, USA
Posted by: eddie torres on Jan 22, 2007 12:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The aftermath of 2.2 million US Vietnam veterans (mostly draftees) returning to an indifferent civilian society took 20 years to play out.

Some PTSD-affected vets took jobs in strictly-managed work places like the US Postal Service - and then went postal.

Some took 'political' stances and joined groups like the Black Panthers and the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Others ran armed robbery teams across the US, and hit armoured cars and banks throughout the Pacific Northwest.

A few specialists joined international conflicts as hired guns - sometimes US-sponsored, sometimes corporate-sponsored - in vacation spots like 1970s Zaire and 1980s El Salvador.

This current generation of highly motivated, well-trained military volunteers? They'll do it all for the money. And don't forget the 90,000 'private' security contractors. They have no illusions of patriotism or civic duty.

They'll protect the compounds, commercial real estate, gated communities, and rural ranches of the uber-rich.

And you ain't uber-rich. Where will you get your food?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT CRIMINALS
Posted by: gellero on Jan 22, 2007 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course this article is off base.......who is a 'criminal'....a college kid who got nailed for a joint?? An 18 year old who screwed a 15 year old ( sex offender !!!! ). A phoney drivers license?? (Felony !!! ) I think most Americans just haven't been caught yet. Is there some reason these volunteers shouln't have the right to serve their country? There is NO evidence here that perpetrators oh heinous crimes are recruited. We should be grateful these people are willing to put their lives on the line for us, wherever the Commander in Chief needs them. If you don't like it, elect a new Commander in Chief.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT CRIMINALS Posted by: VZEQICVA
» RE: NOT CRIMINALS Posted by: Krain61
» Spelling Posted by: gellero
» RE: Spelling Posted by: Krain61
» RE: NOT CRIMINALS Posted by: blitzmesser
"Weep not only for Iraqi civilians. Weep for ourselves."
Posted by: polyquat50 on Jan 22, 2007 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Really? The trouble with most Alternet debate is that there is way too much weeping for poor old Amerika, and not enough for the Iraqi civilians.

Witness the great (not) response to the articles on the failing Iraqi health system.

We need to get out of Iraq, not for ourselves, but for the Iraqi people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A pretty insulting article IMHO
Posted by: Bearzerker on Jan 22, 2007 5:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum - Let him who wishes for peace prepare for war. (Vegetius)

A pretty insulting article IMHO and is pretty disappointing to service members of all stripes... it recognizes flaws within the organization but misses the point on military service completely... what this article misses is that the people who serve are a reflection of the society as a whole... violence may beget violence but the author here neglects, to look at "home quality of life" issues that ultimately make honourable citizens that reflect the values we are suppose to be reinforceing throughout our spere of influence...

ALL people are "high value assets" and are what is needed to be recruited and reinforced through the indoctrination process and basic training, ALL are trainable and worthy of a chance to serve...

A volunteer force is just that... VOLUNTEERS... don't go back to conscription... but if u must, never send them to fight the fight they don't want to be involved in... its just to disgusting to contemplate for the poor bastards that volunteered...

This is a poorly written article about making judgments on the million or so people serving their brother's in harms way... It offers nothing of substance reflecting the truer means of the volunteer force.
The US military does need a top down cleansing to bring honour back to the once magnificent force and the current brain dead method of basic training needs an overhaul too.

Ultimately its about people helping each other and serving a greater good... nothing more...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Volunteers Vs. Voluntolds Posted by: Bearzerker
Alice's Restaurant
Posted by: mizipi on Jan 22, 2007 7:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Arlo Guthrie said it best a long, long time ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHY SHOULDN'T BUSH ALLOW MISFITS?
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Jan 22, 2007 9:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
George W. Bush is the biggest misfit of them all so he should feel right at home with his own kind although none could be quite as deviant as he is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq a Threat??
Posted by: gellero on Jan 22, 2007 9:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, duh, wasn't their incursion into Kuwait a threat?? Most of us don't want to ride a bike or walk. Wasn't Saadam an instigator?? So what if he didn't have anything to do with 9-11. After the way we destroyed Iraq, Saadam, and his whole family and syncophants, I don't think too many governments will ever mess with us. The Taliban Afghans thought they were playing an innocent game of power....and look at what they got. Sorry if that sounds hegemonistic or colonialistic, but think about it. Should we have gone into Rawanda and saved 100,000 innocents??? How about Dafur???

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Iraq a Threat?? Posted by: Krain61
don't blame the wrongly convicted
Posted by: mister-wilson on Jan 23, 2007 2:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
reposted from: theCoup.org

Oddly, there’s a growing fear of felons in the military.

The pentagon has started granting an increasing number of “moral waivers” to allow former convicts to enlist, and maintain the military’s size.

People are understandably upset by the violent behavior of soldiers against Iraqi civilians, and they fear that such incidents will happen more often. But…

It’s important to remember a few things:

1) The military and its recruiters prey on poverty, lying to vulnerable boys and girls to enlist them.

2) Shitty training, conflicting orders, and the insane conditions in Iraq lead trapped soldiers to do terrible things. Ultimately, Washington and top brass cause the violence.

3) Prison is an enterprise, parole a means of control. The US locks people up with ferver, and does it at a rate like no other country. The majority of people convicted never deserved it.

Yes, we should detest the violence against people in the Middle East. But don’t slander your neighbor. To assume that someone who sold pot in Chicago would be more out of control than anyone else in Iraq is silly.

We should point to waivers as a hypocrisy, the government labeling people fit and unfit as needed. We should argue that offering people a ticket out of a poverty maintained by parole is a form of indentured servitude.

Critique the moral waivers and other attempts to feed our war business, but don’t let your fear accidentally support the idea that lawmakers, police, and courts have done their job right.

reposted from: theCoup.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You've GOT to be kidding!
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Jan 23, 2007 2:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These people still remember the Crusades like they were yesterday. After we have turned so much of their country into a radioactive moonscape that causes super-high rates of mutation, destroyed their infrastructure so that a horrible number are starving or dying from lack of safe water, hospitals, medication, etc, etc; left mines and other deadly devices lying around; we've annihilated entire families, some consisting of over a hundred men, women and children of all ages; and now we're using a crony local politician to steal their one means of making enough money to begin recovering, not to mention sending violent criminals straight out of prison, guaranteeing more sadistic murders and rapes, JUST HOW DO THINK THEY'RE GOING TO FEEL?

They had nothing to do with 9-11; we all know that now, and I'm unimpressed by your give-a-shit attitude: Bush LIED us into this war for the oil law that's coming up, and you don't CARE?? I was a medic during Vietnam, boy. Try visiting some of wounded and maimed; see what kind of price they paid, and WILL pay for the rest of their lives. They'll have minimum help from the government, too - Bush keeps cutting veteran's benefits; I know: I AM one.

I expect to see Iraqis responsible for terrorism, even here in the US, when they never were before. That bastard Idiot-in-Chief has recruited at LEAST an entire country of terrorists. The rest of young Islam is going to be MUCH more vulnerable to recruitment because of this too. Count on it.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You've GOT to be kidding! Posted by: Aussie Kim
Costs
Posted by: sulphurdunn on Jan 23, 2007 5:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Failure to meet military recruitment goals through enlistment are easily remedied by conscription. Any war worth fighting is worth sending everybody's kids too. The idea of emptying prisons or hiring mercenaries to do what American citizens are unwilling to do means much more than just a war has been lost. Fight the war or fight to end it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So what; we are ALL criminals for allowing this war
Posted by: druidlaw on Jan 23, 2007 7:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Bush is gonna let felons serve? I have news for you.Felons are already serving. Some you elected, some the ones you elected appointed: CF Dick Cheney, who should be tried and sentenced to 20 years for defrauding the troops with Halliburton shorting them and overcharging them on food, gas, and necessities in Iraq and Afghanistan; Bush for fabricating the WMD story ( so too should the late, unlamented Lyndon Baines -of- my- existence Johnson have swung from a rope or faced a firing squad for the lies about the " Gulf of Tonkin " incident which NEVER HAPPENED but got him the war powers and extra stuff for continuing Vietnam)..... wake up and smell the napalm. Someone with a criminal record might just be the ticket for dealing with criminals like Muktr al Sadr, that little piece of garbage. He is Islamic, in the words of Kurt Vonnegut Jr., like my ass chews gum. Islam is not a religion of fanatics. Fanatics have coopted it, just as the Religious Right has coopted Christianity. I served under a REAL Republican President.... Dwight D. Eisenhower. Today's America is what you get when you send a boy to do a man's job.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grab all the Punk Killers in Oakland & Richmond
Posted by: common intelligence on Jan 23, 2007 12:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These little brat drug freak bastards need to be given a lesson in real fear. They want to shoot innocent people...
Let'm realize what happens when they are the receiving end of smarter adversaries like a bunch of Sunnis an Sheits.

Let'm face a nut case suicidal whacko. that will straighten them out!
That will be better for homeland security too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bush's chance to serve...
Posted by: JoeCraine on Jan 23, 2007 7:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If they would enlist active criminals

Make up for going AWOL last time. It would certainly be a benefit to the world if he got a deep, deep, breath of the DU (depleted uranium, "U238") dust that he and his dad are speading around like shit.

Joe Craine

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How many really know about this?
Posted by: Habaro on Jan 24, 2007 1:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"We now know. In March 2006, five U.S. soldiers allegedly stalked, gang-raped, and murdered 14-year old Abeer Qassim al-Janabi, slaughtered her family, and burned the bodies."

I have mentioned this incident several times to friends and co-workers, etc. and most have not heard of it. Those who have, are usually like, "Yeah, ya know I think I remember hearing something about that..." Another guy said, "Are you sure that's not just some internet rumor?"
This incident is appaulingly off-the-radar and, at best, insignificant to the mainstream. It had almost zero media coverage when the story broke and none as of late. Nobody seems able to understand how damging this story is to our country's image--and by "story", I am refering to the relative slap on the wrist these perpetrators (Bush crew included) will most likely receive.

I know war is hell--as the warmongers will ironically tell you, but all of those miserable, hard-up fuckers should hang for disgracing our country (again, not just those directly involved in the rape/murders). But alas, we'll all remain mute (?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Crime Exposure
Posted by: gellero on Jan 25, 2007 2:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That heinous crime didn't recieve media exposure?? Funny, but I remember reading about it on the front page of the New York Times. Perhaps your friends don't read any really literate newspapers. Even the dumbed down paper of the hoi polloi - USA Today - wrote it up.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Prisoners who are Criminals make good soldiers.
Posted by: EMOgeorgeBUSH on Feb 13, 2007 8:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I where the president of United States of America -i.e. G.W.Bush, I believe I would be honest and express myself likewise:

I have emotional problems too, and I am the president of the United States of America, yes, everyone seen my monkey faces, yes? Everyone noticed my so called monkey faces portrayed on world wide, and any seasoned psychotherapist will tell you these are tell tail signs of a person who has emotional problems and possible boarder-line personality disorder'(s). Ok, I admit, I made monkey faces, so I was a clown in college, and I could afford to, my father was the top bull in the CIA gosh darn-it. I am fighting terrorism dang nabbit.

Ok, I admit that I have a drug abuse past history in college, and alcohol abuse and with police documentation of proof. So, why not recruit homicidal prisoners to go into war as 2 to 4 man reconnaissance teams. The pay-back will be reduced time in jail by 3/4, and or complete clean slate of charges with a choice of any country, other than America, to become a citizen again. Few would say not to this, indeed!

So what are we waiting for? What am I waiting for? Congress, and Senators, and you America people to free up the American corrections populations and fight terrorist abroad. Prisons are our resource and should be used to further our nation needs economically and not be a drain on our social services, and our tax paying dollars.

- jean-paul picard
GW. Bush
/aka Sparky.
or you can call me Billy-Bob Southerland.

P.s.s. Freedom fries was a pun, Sorry! Hugz! xox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement